Member Info for Scrodingerscat

You are right it does come down to belief, but boy dies this CEO make it hard to believe him. He didn't say it and wouldn't but the end of the year comments where his own deadline after all. Didn't really articulate why he imposed a deadline on himself, and there was a fair bit of deflection from soft questions. Not openly admitting it but you can infer from what he said that it was a mistake to give a deadline.

The SP benefitted from it short term so again can understand why he over egged things to maximize the Lanstead agreement. Doesn't make it right though, people will have lost money here, and they will have known sometime ago they weren't going to get a deal done before Christmas. Anyways will take the positives TM said he would get it done, I don't 100% believe him though and only fools are certain. I'm in the camp of actions not words, no deramping or ramping, I don't do either regardless of what some try and pigeon hole me into (been here 7 years). The wait goes on. GLA

Look pal, I'm not your mate and you can live in whatever fantasy land where corporates don't do or care about due diligence but don't complain when this stretches out and that's exactly what you are waiting for to be completed.

Why the hell would they bother doing it at all in your make belief deal world? Because with potentially significant amounts of cash involved they need to make sure they don't get stiffed by IMM management like so many shareholders, INC shareholders, Marionnaud and potentially looking like existing partners (Avion) will. If they didn't give a fig about anything other than the science they would pay up and sign a deal straight out of the data room. Yet you call me stupid. You don't even know what you are waiting to happen.

No I won't be buying more and no I'm not selling yet. I will as I always do revise those positions when more facts are released. I'm quite happy for people to buy as P140 could be successful, equally wouldn't blame people for selling the suggestion from IMM is they have time before any meaningful news. Will people buy/sell off the back of a TM interview, most probably.

Rookie1 not really my problem that you can't differentiate between a credit check and a due diligence background check, but that highlights your ignorance not mine. You could have googled it to save your blushes, but you didn't. Due diligence takes so long because it's full on and yes third party investigators are often involved and believe it or not reputation and media checks are part of that process. So a utility bill is not relevant no, but imagine if the dealings at Incanthera scuppered a deal as an example, you'd never know just that a deal collapsed. But you play the fool it suits you, ridiculous that you are invested here on the hope of a deal and are ignorant to what is involved to get there.

Nope not enormous faith, again not my issue that you can't seperate several trains of thought and outcomes in your mind, remember your 50:50 comments now that was hilarious, even children know that's not how probabilities work.

Though Ketan Patel based on his background and history I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. Also remember when I said they needed to bring in a deal maker, you called it pie in the sky if I remember. Funny eh. Anyways as JP highlights and I already know you are incapable of not having the last word, for what it's worth it's a psychological issue and you have my sympathy for whatever trauma led you to this online persona. Try and make some friends over the festivities you might pick less fights and feel better for it. Peace out.

Sorry who top sliced and is only holding a free hit? I have sold none of my shares, so no profits and equally could fall beneath my average. We have done this dance before and I told you before I will continue to hold long term and for the umpteenth time because I value the IP. Why is it impossible for you to seperate TM from IMM? Plenty of people could do his job and better not part time for one thing, the IP on the other hand is in my opinion unique.

We can all be a child with nicknames wigw4nker. You are right though Tim did get a raise away and maximised the Lanstead agreement. However required 2 lies to get there and the expense of others to achieve it namely 1. No requirement to raise and 2. Year of delivery. I guess the ends justify the means to some. Ignore those who've lost out because they believed those 2 seperate false statements... Right?

Absolute rubbish anyone who's been in the corporate world knows not to partner with untrustworthy partners or to be exceptionally wary of them. In fact reputation is often part of many firms due diligence. M&A lawyers don't just look at the books. If you think anyone considering partnering on a multi-million deal with IMM isn't looking beyond the technology and finances into every single one of the BOD, their associations, other interests and history then you are deluded. Even basic loans and credit lines will do checks.

Pensioninvestor exactly this. If you can't believe the words he says it doesn't matter if they have a cure for cancer, reputation is everything in the markets. Easy to damage and difficult to rebuild. I think even if he secures a deal he needs to be removed. He seems like a niceish chap, but he's proven to be economical with the truth time and again and that doesn't make him a bad guy, just not someone to run a multi million pound company.

The RNS in isolation is not the issue. In fact on it's own it's a positive.

The problem is and without banging the drum it can't be taken in isolation, because the release is completely at odds with what Tim said a couple of months ago. Again that could be forgiven, but unfortunately IMM is in the position now whether investors like it or not that TM is not trusted. Not here nor at Incanthera. In fact there are plenty of SP's that under react to good news simply because of who is in charge and their past history. In the long run CEO's don't have to be consistently achieving to do well, but they do need to be consistent in their communication, and I don't mean consistently telling untruths. It amazes me that people don't understand that for many just stumping up your cash to invest requires a high level of trust the leadership can deliver.

There are plenty of car salesmen CEO's but they are concentrated at the bottom of the market and struggle to get funding from the public. If IMM was a FTSE 100 firm and this scenario panned out, it would be national news. Trust isn't everything and not everyone does factor that in but big money and big pharma certainly does.

I will wait as I have waited many years but people shouldn't dismiss others with a missed deadline. But there was doubt before and the RNS has increased that doubt.

The RNS in isolation is not the issue. In fact on it's own it's a positive.

The problem is and without banging the drum it can't be taken in isolation, because the release is completely at odds with what Tim said a couple of months ago. Again that could be forgiven, but unfortunately IMM is in the position now whether investors like it or not that TM is not trusted. Not here nor at Incanthera. In fact there are plenty of SP's that under react to good news simply because of who is in charge and their past history. In the long run CEO's don't have to be consistently achieving to do well, but they do need to be consistent in their communication, and I don't mean consistently telling untruths. It amazes me that people don't understand that for many just stumping up your cash to invest requires a high level of trust the leadership can deliver.

There are plenty of car salesmen CEO's but they are concentrated at the bottom of the market and struggle to get funding from the public. If IMM was a FTSE 100 firm and this scenario panned out, it would be national news. Trust isn't everything and not everyone does factor that in but big money and big pharma certainly does.

I will wait as I have waited many years but people shouldn't dismiss others with a missed deadline. But there was doubt before and the RNS has ibcde

It is a coincidence but I said before from a risk perspective it makes perfect sense for them to exit entirely. They have 70 million warrants that cost them nothing until excised. So basically they've made a tidy profit and will likely only excise when they know the lie of the land in a few months. If no deal remains they will just let them expire.

I wonder if in 12 months from now will TM be trying to raise again with Lanstead or will he have delivered... Something, anything. The patent is meaningless without an interested partner to take it forward. It's ok for some who haven't experienced this before but we've done this dance with the current leadership multiple times over many years for differing reasons, you just feel scammed every time or just frustrated when they went to ground. Last time with zero communication for a whole year except for mandatory releases. Nearly 3 years they avoided talking about Avion and trials.

86KB is it so hard to understand that you can believe in the science or IP but have little faith in the delivery or communication. Only Tim knows why he said what he said, but ultimately he has a track record of over promising, making statements that turn out to be false later down the line and under delivering. It worked out for him short term in regards to Lanstead but bearing in mind a sizeable chunk voted against him at the AGM and if he were up for reapointment today would that percentage increase or decrease?

Opinions aside the facts are no deal in 2025, and 10 pharma's have signed NDA's. That doesn't mean a deal is anywhere near agreed or even if there is one, purely in isolation of that release. CEO's are accountable to their words and people bought in based on those words. We have a habit of blaming people for their investment choices in the UK but the company has released hype after hype from September and people have bought in and are now under water or worse sold at a loss. Their fault though yeah? Because we should believe the opposite of what the leadership here says? Certainly not TM who is not accountable to the words he says according to some.

I'm not with you, never have been. I've always been wary of TM and my opinions change when the facts change... I'm not dogmatic. I still believe in the IP I just don't have faith in Tim, I've been invested here too long and he's pulled this stuff far too many times for this to even be funny. I'd like to see him removed regardless of if he secures a deal in 2026. Any organisation led by someone untrustworthy always suffer in the long run, seen it too many times where the CEO becomes a reason not to invest in and that stretches to partnerships as well. Potential partners see this don't think they do not.

it's not just naysayers though is it. plenty of people are tired of tim's ****. whether we like to admit it or not all those interviews have for the umpteenth time proven his words to be false or to put in market terms false and misleading. with the lanstead sharing agreement dependent on shareprice now conveniently over the relevant bodies should investigate tm for market abuse. the rise was on tim's comments after all, the patent news had fizzled out. will they who knows, doubtful but a pump to 19p on his interviews and drop to 7p and still falling. no wonder people avoid the lse, it's not perfect by any means but at least the regulatory bodies stateside have teeth.

2025 is not the year of delivery though and although it mentions interested parties (I can't remember an RNS from IMM that has ever mentioned anything similar), that's where the positives ends. The market will hammer the shareprice because there is no indication of how advanced these discussions are and it is purposefully written to cover for a deal and no deal with no indication of a timeline for delivery. Notice how at no point even with the mention of 2026 does the release offer anything other than vague neutrality. Tim really is a rotter, I feel for those and there are plenty who bought into the rise and whether we think a deal is likely or not those burned will not be steaming back even on positive news in 2026. These antics really are tiresome now from IMM. I forsee trouble for TM at the AGM and he doesn't have the protection he had from Lanstead this time.

Doesn't look like there's a way back or not for years anyways. At the mercy of bondholders. JMAX is no prophet though it didn't take a genius to see year on year production declines even after drilling well after well. Probably best RD took a year off considering his track record on drilling in Jubilee and Ten. Remember the jam tomorrow comments from the man himself. The CMD 7 year plan is now definitively a complete flop. A combination of avoidable errors, funny how if they had done a new seismic before a 21 well drilling campaign over multiple years things could have been quite different. Problem is any of the new wells coming online achieving better than expected results now is far too late. Ghana not paying it's bills and all focus there is a hard lesson of the golden rule of not putting all your eggs in one basket.

I reduced sometime ago but sadly Tullow is a write off. No reason to invest. Company is not cash positive at these oil prices, production is awful and $1.6B due in half a year. Only choice for holders now is to choose which tax year to take the loss.

OTM you really do like to play the ghost at the feast. Name one company in pharma that secures a deal based on it's mcap... Just one? There are literally multiple examples of small time research outfits securing hundred million dollar deals or greater. The deals are worth what the IP is deemed to be worth and since it's not for private consumption for obvious intellectual protection the market has no idea. The only individuals with proper insight are IMM themselves and someone with an understanding of research data, an NDA and allowed in the data room. If the market knew the value of all pharmacological treatment candidates it wouldn't have some of the most volatile traded stocks on the planet. Tech and pharma always have the biggest rises specifically because the market does not know how to value them. You want an easy stock to value buy shares in Retail investments. Your comments are asinine.

Juxtaposition begrudgingly in defence of WW as we don't see eye to eye. He can read a cashflow statement better than you. To help you with your glaringly obvious error. You should read up on R&D tax relief for businesses on gov.uk.

OTM spouting rubbish again. They've had no income for 25 years yet still exist. No income is also false as categorically the Lanstead deal will provide cash this month, 100 million warrants to be exercised and R&D credits to claim. Tim explicitly has highlighted clear cash runway into 2026 and anyone who is invested knows none of the portfolio is going to be commercial next year. A deal doesn't happen then TM will try to raise next year, a raise now is highly unlikely because he's already done one relatively recently and this will tell the market there is no current prospective deal.

Now I don't trust Tim implicitly but you either believe him or OTM... The guy who talks to himself on here, posts everyday and threatens to sue people when they disagree with him. Your choice.

I know that's a dig and it's no secret, I'm outraged for you. Tell me how is an extra 235 million shares good for your average shareholder? Shares in issue will have doubled including the raise. The rationale makes zero sense in the context given. I will be interested to see what transpires, hopefully it's positive but there's a distinct track record of these things only done for the benefit of certain board members and not the shareholders.